DOCSLIB.ORG

1076 (1909), Codified at 17 U.S.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1076 (1909), Codified at 17 U.S.C CHAPTER 5 What Is Copyrighted? Chapter Contents § 5.01 Subject Matter of Copyright [1] General Scope of Subject Matter [2] The Idea/Expression Dichotomy [a] The Basic Doctrine [b] Underlying Policies [c] The "Levels of Abstraction" Test [d] Merger of Idea and Expression [3] Assessing Infringement: Access and Substantial Similarity § 5.02 Special Categories of Copyrighted Subject Matter [1] Computer Programs [a] The 1980 Software Amendments [b] Case Law [c] Computer-Generated Works [2] Compilations and Databases [a] Compilations of Data as Copyrighted Works [b] The Theoretical Basis of Compilation Copyrights: "Sweat of the Brow" Doctrine Rejected [c] Copyright Protection for Random-Access Databases [i] Copying the Arrangement [ii] Copying the Selection [d] Toward a Theory of Database Protection [i] The Numbers Approach [ii] The Categories Approach [iii] Congruency of Markets [iv] An Economic Approach [v] Conclusion: The Statutory Approach [3] Useful Articles [a] Ornamental Aspects of Useful Articles [b] Pictures of Useful Articles [c] Plans, Drawings, and Models for Useful Articles [i] Eligibility of Plans, Drawings, and Models for Copyright Protection [ii] Limits on Protection [4] Architecture [a] The Separate Legal Regime for Building De- signs [b] Subject Matter Covered: Building Designs [c] Limitations on Copyright Protection for Building Designs [d] Prospectivity of Protection § 5.03 Prerequisites for Copyright Protection: Fixation, Originality, and Creativity [1] Fixation [a] New Technology [b] Communicative Function [c] What "Fixation" Means [i] Author's Authorization [ii] Tangible Medium and Permanence [d] Fixation and Interactive Systems [e] Fixation and Copyright Preemption [2] Originality [3] Creativity [4] What Copyright Does Not Require [a] The Difference Between Copyright and Patent Standards [b] Content and Copyright Protection § 5.01 Subject Matter of Copyright Patents and trade secrets may protect concepts in the broad sense. Almost any concept may be the subject of a patent if it has functional utility and meets the other high standards for patentability.1 Similarly, virtually any information or idea may qualify for trade secret protection, as long as it has limited availability, derives economic value from its secrecy, and is properly guarded.2 1 See § 2.03 supra. There are limitations, however. Patents are not available for such things as fundamental principles of science and mathematics, mathematical formulae, algorithms, and new business ideas—at least not in their abstract forms, divorced from specific devices or methods used to implement them. See § 2.02[2] supra. 2 See §§ 4.02[1], 4.03 supra. In contrast, copyright does not protect "ideas" or "facts" at all, but only the form of expression of ideas or facts in a particular work of authorship.3 The dichotomy between idea and expression, which is fundamental to copyright law, distinguishes copyrights from other forms of intellectual property. Copyright does not prevent anyone from copying the ideas or facts contained in a copyrighted work, or from describing in different words any real-life event that the work portrays.4 However, copyright does protect an author's original expression. As its name suggests, copyright prohibits unauthorized copying and cer- tain similar acts. It does not protect an author against independent creation of the same expression, and proof of independent creation is a complete defense to a claim of copyright infringement.5 Subject to this basic limitation, how- ever, copyright provides broad and commercially useful protection for various forms of artistic, creative, and intellectual expression. [1]—General Scope of Subject Matter Although in theory both the Copyright Clause of the United States Con- stitution6 and the language of the copyright statute limit the scope of copy- right protection, in practice the courts interpret both broadly. The Copyright Clause empowers Congress to protect the "writings" of "authors,"7 and the courts have construed these terms broadly.8 According to the Supreme Court, a "writing" may include "any physical rendering of the fruits of creative intel- lectual or aesthetic labor."9 3 See § 5.01[2] infra. 4 See id. 5 See, e.g.: Supreme Court: Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 218, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954) ("Ab- sent copying there can be no infringement of copyright") (Footnote omitted.); Bleistein v. Don- aldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 249, 23 S.Ct. 298, 47 L.Ed. 460 (1903) ("Others are free to copy the original. They are not free to copy the copy"). Second Circuit: Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1936) (dictum: independent creation of Keat's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" would merit separate copy- right protection). 6 U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. 7 Id. The Clause gives Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their re- spective Writings and Discoveries ..." See also, §§ 1.08[1], 2.01 supra. 8 See, e.g.: Supreme Court: Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 561, 93 S.Ct. 2303, 37 L.Ed.2d 163 (1973) ("The terms ['writings' and 'authors'] have not been construed in their narrow literal sense but, rather, with the reach necessary to reflect the broad scope of constitutional princi- ples"); 412 U.S. at 562 ("[sound] recordings of artistic performances may be within the reach" of Copyright Clause); Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 57-58, 4 S.Ct. 279, 28 L.Ed. 349 (1884) (Constitution authorizes copyright of photographs). Second Circuit: Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, Inc., 276 F. 717, 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) ("writings" include book of nonsense syllables intended for use in preparing secret telegraphic codes; Constitution is "not a strait-jacket, but a charter for a living people"). The patent branch of the Copyright Clause enjoys an equally broad interpretation. See § 2.02[1][a] supra. 9 Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546, 561, 93 S.Ct. 2303, 37 L.Ed.2d 163 (1973). In adopting the Copyright Act of 1976,10 Congress made clear that it did not intend to exhaust its constitutional power under the Copyright Clause. Instead of using the phrase "all the writings of an author," as it had done in the Copyright Act of 1909,11 Congress used the somewhat narrower phrase "original works of authorship."12 Its purpose in choosing this narrower phrase was to avoid giving the courts "the alternative of holding copy- rightable something that Congress clearly did not intend to protect, or of holding constitutionally incapable of copyright something that Congress might one day want to protect."13 In this way Congress sought to reserve for itself some constitutional power to expand the scope of copyright protection in the future.14 Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 describes the subject matter of copyright in broad, general terms: "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or 10 Publ. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (Oct. 19, 1976), codified in Title 17 U.S.C. This is the current copyright statute; it replaced in its entirety the Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60- 349, 35 Stat. 1075 (Mar. 4, 1909). The 1976 Act took effect generally on January 1, 1978, although a few provisions took effect upon enactment. See Pub. L. No. 94-553, §§ 102, 103, 90 Stat. 2541, 2598-2599 (Oct. 19, 1976). The copyright revision that culminated in the 1976 Act took over twenty years. For brief ju- dicial histories of the effort, see: Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153, 159-61, 105 S.Ct. 638, 83 L.Ed.2d 556 (1985); Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417, 462-63 n.9, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). A House report on the revision effort contains a complete section-by-section analysis of the statute. See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 3, 1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5659. Other useful sources of legislative history include the Con- ference Report, H.R. Rep. No. 1733, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 29, 1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5810, and an early Senate report on a predecessor bill, S. Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (Nov. 20, 1975). The Conference Report contains no section-by-section analysis. It addressed only the fol- lowing topics: copyright protection for U.S. government publications, fair use, reproduction by libraries and archives, photocopying for interlibrary loans, limitations on performance and display rights, secondary transmissions (including cable television), exclusive rights in sound recordings, the statutory compulsory license for phonorecords, noncommercial broadcasting, federal preemption, deposit of radio and television programs, remedies for infringement, the "manufacturing clause," protection of ornamental designs for useful articles, and the Copyright Office and Copyright Royalty Tribunal. The Senate report addressed an earlier version of the copyright bill, which differed in a number of respects from the statute that Congress adopted. The House Report adopted much of the language of the Senate Report verbatim. Consequently, the House Report is the best general source of legislative history for the 1976 Act. 11 See Pub. L. No. 60-349, § 4, 35 Stat. 1075, 1076 (1909), codified at 17 U.S.C. § 4 (1970) ("The works for which copyright may be secured under this title include all the writings of an author"). 12 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 13 See H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report on Designation Lpb 559/08
    REPORT ON DESIGNATION LPB 559/08 Name and Address of Property: MGM Building 2331 Second Avenue Legal Description: Lot 7 of Supplemental Plat to Block 27 to Bell and Denny’s First Addition to the City of Seattle, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, Page 83, in King County, Washington; Except the northeasterly 12 feet thereof condemned for widening 2nd Avenue. At the public meeting held on October 1, 2008, the City of Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Board voted to approve designation of the MGM Building at 2331 Second Avenue, as a Seattle Landmark based upon satisfaction of the following standard for designation of SMC 25.12.350: C. It is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, City, state or nation; and D. It embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, period, or of a method of construction. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE This building is notable both for its high degree of integrity and for its Art Deco style combining dramatic black terra cotta and yellowish brick. It is also one of the very few intact elements remaining on Seattle’s Film Row, a significant part of the Northwest’s economic and recreational life for nearly forty years. Neighborhood Context: The Development of Belltown Belltown may have seen more extensive changes than any other Seattle neighborhood, as most of its first incarnation was washed away in the early 20th century. The area now known as Belltown lies on the donation claim of William and Sarah Bell, who arrived with the Denny party at Alki Beach on November 13, 1851.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Newsletter 2006
    Volume 23 Number 1 LLAW NEWSLETTER Page 1 NEWSLETTER Law Librarians Association of Wisconsin A Chapter of the American Association of Law Libraries VOLUME 23 NUMBER 2 WINTER 2006 President’s Message WisBlawg (http://www.law.wisc.edu/blogs/wisblawg/) Bev Butula, Davis and Kuelthau just found a new home. Bonnie Shucha’s acclaimed legal blog is a regular read for an endless amount of Anyone else out there watch “Project Runway?” I am legal professionals. She has summed up her goal per- completely addicted to the program. If you have not fectly – “Searching Smarter….With a Little Help from seen it, it is a reality show where aspiring fashion de- a Law Librarian.” If you haven’t had a chance to take a signers must design and create a garment based on the tour, please do! Bonnie has spoke about Blogs and weekly challenge. One week they had to make a cos- RSS feeds at several different conventions/institutes/ tume for figure skater Sasha Cohen. The original and seminars. interesting outfits that go down the runway at the end of the show each week constantly amaze me. The My last stop in this “authorship” tour is the publication contestants have an extraordinary amount of talent. initiative launched by Carol Bannen and currently chaired by Susan O’Toole. Most of you know that Why am I writing about a television show? Well, the AALL/West awarded this project the Marketing Award answer is actually quite simple. The show highlights for the “Best Campaign” in 2004. So many individuals individual skill.
    [Show full text]
  • 01-618. Eldred V. Ashcroft
    1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 ERIC ELDRED, ET AL., : 4 Petitioners : 5 v. : No. 01-618 6 JOHN D. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY : 7 GENERAL : 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 9 Washington, D.C. 10 Wednesday, October 9, 2002 11 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 12 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 13 10:03 a.m. 14 APPEARANCES: 15 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ., Stanford, California; on behalf of 16 the Petitioners. 17 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ., Solicitor General, Department of 18 Justice, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the 19 Respondent. 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE 3 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 4 On behalf of the Petitioners 3 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF 6 THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ. 7 On behalf of the Respondent 25 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF 9 LAWRENCE LESSIG, ESQ. 10 On behalf of the Petitioners 48 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Alderson Reporting Company 1111 14th Street, N.W. Suite 400 1-800-FOR-DEPO Washington, DC 20005 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:03 a.m.) 3 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument 4 now in Number 01-618, Eric Eldred v. John D. Ashcroft. 5 Mr. Lessig. 6 ORAL ARGUMENT OF LAWRENCE LESSIG 7 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 8 MR.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents
    I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P 8 4 5 M O R A I N E S T R E E T M A R S H F I E L D , M A S S A C H U S E T T S USA 0 2 0 5 0 t 7 8 1 - 8 3 7 - 9 1 5 2 w w w . i l l u s t r a t o r s p a r t n e r s h i p . o r g February 3, 2013 Maria Pallante Register of Copyrights US Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 RE: Notice of Inquiry, Copyright Office, Library of Congress Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (77 FR 64555) Comments of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America In its October 22, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, the Copyright Office has asked for comments from interested parties regarding “what has changed in the legal and business environments during the past four years that might be relevant to a resolution of the [orphan works] problem and what additional legislative, regulatory, or voluntary solutions deserve deliberation at this time.” As rightsholders, we welcome and appreciate the opportunity to comment. In the past, we have not opposed orphan works legislation in principle; but we have opposed legislation drafted so broadly that it would have permitted the widespread orphaning and infringement of copyright-protected art. In 2008, the Illustrators’ Partnership was joined by 84 other creators’ organizations in opposing that legislation; 167,000 letters were sent to members of Congress from our website.
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • View Show Notes
    https://archive.org/details/bigpicturemoneyp00epst/page/14 So there’s not a whole lot on the notes front for this episode because I didn’t have a ton of time to write anything out but I have been reading through Wikipedia pages for a couple days and wrote a little bit. This one is going to be about the history of Hollywood or, more specifically, the history of major motion picture production companies. Also just for the record, or more just to tell you, for the vinyl episode and my future episode about the music industry Ehtisham and I alluded to I kind of set up the background information and then I’m going to bring it forward into today, but with this episode and its future companion episode I intend to do the opposite. In the film industry there is what are known as ‘The Big 5’ companies, (for the record depending on who you ask and what time period you are working in this could be the Big 4-6 so it gets tricky) these are the ones that produce an absolutely massive amount of the media we consume. According to Wikipedia this means companies that make 80-85% of the box office revenue made in the country. This concept is not too recent however, as the Big 5 as we know them today are the second iteration of the group. The original Big 5 were: MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros., and RKO. The current Big 5 are: Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney, and Columbia. I plan on just kinda going through the old Big 5 and then the new Big 5 one by one, following their beginning and rise and/or demise.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Law Revision
    COPYRIGHT LAW REVISION REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW JULY 1961 Printed for the use of the House-- Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 676682 WASHINGTON : 1961 For sale by the Superlntendent of Documents, U.S. Qo7cmment Prlntlug O5ce Wn~bington25, D.O. - Prlco 45 cent8 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL THE LIBRAR~AWOF CORORESB, Washington, l).C. July 7, 1961. Hon. SAMRAYE~N, Igpealcw of the House of Representatices, Washington. D.C. SIB: As authorized by Congress, the Copyright Office of the =brary of Con- gress has in the past few years made a number of studies preparatory to a general revision of the copyright law, title 17 of the United States Code. That program bas now been completed. Thirty-four studies and a subject index have been published in a series of 12 committee prints issued by the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The studies have been widely circulated and interested persons were inrited to submit their comments and views. On the basis of the studies and the comments and views received. the Copy- right Ofece has prepared a report on the important issues to be considered and tentative recommendations for their solution in a general revision of the law. I am pleased to submit the report of the Register of Copyrights on general re vision of the copyright law to you find to the Vice President for consideration by the Congress. Very truly yours, L. QUINCYMUMFOBD, Librarian of Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • El Cine De Animación Estadounidense
    El cine de animación estadounidense Jaume Duran Director de la colección: Lluís Pastor Diseño de la colección: Editorial UOC Diseño del libro y de la cubierta: Natàlia Serrano Primera edición en lengua castellana: marzo 2016 Primera edición en formato digital: marzo 2016 © Jaume Duran, del texto © Editorial UOC (Oberta UOC Publishing, SL) de esta edición, 2016 Rambla del Poblenou, 156, 08018 Barcelona http://www.editorialuoc.com Realización editorial: Oberta UOC Publishing, SL ISBN: 978-84-9116-131-8 Ninguna parte de esta publicación, incluido el diseño general y la cubierta, puede ser copiada, reproducida, almacenada o transmitida de ninguna forma, ni por ningún medio, sea éste eléctrico, químico, mecánico, óptico, grabación, fotocopia, o cualquier otro, sin la previa autorización escrita de los titulares del copyright. Autor Jaume Duran Profesor de Análisis y Crítica de Films y de Narrativa Audiovi- sual en la Universitat de Barcelona y profesor de Historia del cine de Animación en la Escuela Superior de Cine y Audiovi- suales de Cataluña. QUÉ QUIERO SABER Lectora, lector, este libro le interesará si usted quiere saber: • Cómo fueron los orígenes del cine de animación en los Estados Unidos. • Cuáles fueron los principales pioneros. • Cómo se desarrollaron los dibujos animados. • Cuáles han sido los principales estudios, autores y obras de este tipo de cine. • Qué otras propuestas de animación se han llevado a cabo en los Estados Unidos. • Qué relación ha habido entre el cine de animación y la tira cómica o los cuentos populares. Índice
    [Show full text]
  • 13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND v. WYNNE ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 13–485. Argued November 12, 2014—Decided May 18, 2015 Maryland’s personal income tax on state residents consists of a “state” income tax, Md. Tax-Gen. Code Ann. §10–105(a), and a “county” in- come tax, §§10–103, 10–106. Residents who pay income tax to anoth- er jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction are al- lowed a credit against the “state” tax but not the “county” tax. §10– 703. Nonresidents who earn income from sources within Maryland must pay the “state” income tax, §§10–105(d), 10–210, and nonresi- dents not subject to the county tax must pay a “special nonresident tax” in lieu of the “county” tax, §10–106.1. Respondents, Maryland residents, earned pass-through income from a Subchapter S corporation that earned income in several States. Respondents claimed an income tax credit on their 2006 Maryland income tax return for taxes paid to other States. The Mary- land State Comptroller of the Treasury, petitioner here, allowed re- spondents a credit against their “state” income tax but not against their “county” income tax and assessed a tax deficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended and Codified)
    The Copyright Act of 1976 (as amended and codified) The Act of October 19, 1976 , Public Law Number 94-553 , 90 Stat. 2598, effective January 1, 1978. Chronology of Amendments Public Law No. 95-94 , 91 Stat. 653, 682 (Aug. 5, 1977) amended Sections 203 and 708. Public Law No. 95-598 , 92 Stat. 2676 (Nov. 6, 1978) amended Section 201. Public Law No. 96-517 , 94 Stat. 3028 (Dec. 12, 1980) amended Sections 101 and 117. Public Law No. 97-180 , 96 Stat. 93 (May 24, 1982) amended Section 506. Public Law No. 97-215 , 96 Stat. 178 (July 13, 1982) amended Section 601. Public Law No. 97-366 , 96 Stat. 1759 (Oct. 25, 1982) amended Section 110, 708. Public Law No. 98-450 , 98 Stat. 1727 (Oct. 4, 1984) amended Sections 109 and 115. Public Law No. 98-620 , 98 Stat. 3347 (Nov. 8, 1984) added Chapter 9 (§ § 901 et seq. ). Public Law No. 99-397 , 100 Stat. 848 (Aug. 27, 1986) amended Sections 111 and 801. Public Law No. 100-159 , 101 Stat. 900 (Nov. 9, 1987) amended Sections 902 and 914. Public Law No. 100-568 , 102 Stat. 2853 (Oct. 31, 1988) added Section 116A and amended Sections 101, 116, 205, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 411, 501, 504, 801, and 804. Public Law No. 100-617 , 102 Stat. 3194 (Nov. 5, 1988) amended Section 109 and 17 U.S.C. § 109 note. Public Law No. 100-667 , 102 Stat. 3949 (Nov. 16, 1988) added Section 119 and amended Sections 111, 501, 801, and 804.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01–618. Argued October 9, 2002—Decided January 15, 2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . by securing [to Authors] for limited Times . the exclusive Right to their . Writings.” In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copy- rights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copy- right protection generally lasted from a work’s creation until 50 years after the author’s death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author’s death, 17 U. S. C. §302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the en- larged terms to existing and future copyrights alike. Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain, brought this suit seeking a de- termination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” prescription and the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
    [Show full text]
  • An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 104 | Issue 1 Article 5 2016 An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris Temple University Beasley School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Harris, Donald P. (2016) "An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 104 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol104/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris' "[B]y virtually ignoring the central purpose of the Copyright/Patent Clause ... the Court has quitclaimed to Congress its principal responsibility in this area of the law. Fairly read, the Court has stated that Congress' actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, 2 judicially unreviewable." INTRODUCTION On July 15, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, held one of a number of hearings reviewing the Copyright Act.3 This particular hearing focused, among other things, on the copyright term (the length over which copyrights are protected).4 While it is not surprising that Congress is again considering the appropriate term for copyrights- Congress has reviewed and increased the copyright term many times since the first Copyright Act of 1791 5-it is troubling because Congress has unfettered discretion in doing so.
    [Show full text]